Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 65.2 to 24.1.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 51.4 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275), Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1483 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | 153.74 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| DTBench | — | 92.3% |
| LMCA | — | 44% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1488 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1488 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289), Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1475 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1533 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1482 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | 1460 |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1484 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | 1450 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Qwen3.7 Max share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.